The Autisnob

Post Reply New Topic

I can never tell when you're serious or not. But somehow the idea of "ostracizing" people to combat snobbery seems a tad... odd... if you are. And I'm pretty sure that insulting people is against the rules on most boards.

It would be unfair even to ALEX! What if you are wrong, or end up REALLY hurting the person?

Nicely done satire, NeantHumain!

Z

P.S. Oops - If I recognized that as satire, am I too NT to have AS? What have I inadvertently revealed about myself?? Where is my copy of the DSM???

Always a good idea to consult the DSM rather than give a bad answer.

That reminds me of a conversation I had with someone once in an autistic-only forum.

I recognized something was not meant literally, and someone autistic said she was going to have to decide I wasn't autistic.

I was afraid she was going to throw me out and grumbled a bit about how that wasn't accurate. Then she said she was joking.

So I joked back "Okay, do I get my autistic privileges back for not realizing that was a joke?"

And... seriously... I still can't distinguish whether NeantHumain was joking, mostly because I often see him write stuff like this and can never tell if he's taking the piss or not.

I was kind of going out on a limb there. I can still have the taking too literally thing happen. This was over the top enough to qualify as an exaggeration in my mind but I could be misinterpreting.

Z

Actually, I said that people shouldn't be certain that they have it without professional input, that's all. I say the same for any disorder, whether it's multiple sclerosis or Asperger's disorder. If people have problems with me pointing this out, it's not my fault that they do, and it even states that professionals are the ones who identify and diagnose people in the standardized diagnostic criteria. It's good to keep an "open mind" over whether one's self-diagnosis is correct or not, that's all (I'm sure people can see the danger of being absolutely certain you have a disorder, and then a professional says you don't have it; then more professionals state the same...).

People can think what they like, it doesn't mean they're right.

OK, maybe thought police was an exaggeration on my part, how about inquisition?

What purpose does it serve to question someone's judgment about themselves if they aren't judging you? Are you concerned about their mental health? Are you concerned that they will lead other people astray?



Will they always be "wrong" about their self-evaluation if they can't get a diagnosis?

Z

I'd only be burning people after I burnt myself if I was hunting for heretics, after all, I was of the self-diagnosed type.

Pointing out the truth isn't judging someone; judging has a positive or negative connotation, I have no feelings attached.

I don't like it when people create false impressions, and I can see how someone who thinks they have one of these disorders speaks under the guise of having it can be misleading for those who themselves seek input, especially when there's a chance that they might not have it (there's a far greater chance of having it if one is professionally diagnosed compared to someone who isn't; this is based on statistics and the assumption that the majority of individuals with an ASD are diagnosed due to the severity of the disorders). Just as I can see how one who has their hopes built up can have them cut down for they didn't have the disorder. I've seen both of these.

"Open mind".

The last question is interesting, from a legal perspective, no. From an anatomical one, of course they have it.

I can see from what you write that you really do care about people, and I might have been misreading some of what you've posted in the past. I have to say I've found it hard to grasp some phrases like "I have no feelings attached" when you give evidence that you really do care about people and what they think - that they might be disappointed if they get their hopes up or are influenced by someone who is misleading. I'm also concerned about those things and it appears that we can agree on them.

"Open mind".

Z

But I am better than anyone else, I am even better than myself.
I had that point of view before I came here.

Autism? For one, no one agrees on even rough numbers.

For two, it is still undefined. A person defined as LFA, may have great skills, and some borderline are dolts.

This is not science or mechanics, it is something plus psychobabble.

I see it is something, it is different, I relate, but cannot pin it down.

Criticsing the foibles of humans is an old tradition. Ambrose Bierce, H. L Menklin, in general we do not define them by their good traits.

As far as anything is concerned, I am grandfathered in, currenty in New Orleans the death rate is five times the national adverage, mostly stress related, heart attack and stroke. We have less medical services, and working PTSD on a regional scale.

If anyone cared to study it, this is a research paper waiting to happen, but no one cares.

This was bigger than 9/11, it took out a city. 250,000 have no place to return to. We have been paying protection money to the Yankees for 140 years, they caused the flood, and here we sit two and half years later.

I do not need a Degree in Government, or Urban Planning, to hold the opinion I do.

We that survived and stayed had a very do it yourself view.

I do not see Autism as such a big issue, I could not define it, I have dealt with it all my life.

My first question to someone with a Masters in Psychobabble would be define Autism.

My next would be how common are all the varities used to make up the explanation in the general population?

Until they can answer these two questions, they are frauds.

I think it exists, but there is no sound information.

The DSM says if it has a body, four wheels, and an engine, it is a car. It could be a pickup, hatch back, convertable. That is not saying much. It is defining words in words.

It is a mystery ailment with no cause, treatment, or cure. It used to be called other words.

I am better than people who think lables are things.

Why would the Yankees want to flood New Orleans because they finally lost a Championship to the Red Sox?

It IS nice that you admit that a bit.



Well, people don't really care about the judging! If an innocent person was judged by the US supreme court as GUILTY, and a sentence was passed that they should be thrown in jail for 200 years(and somehow made to live to just the last day), *****NOBODY***** would care!

So why does anyone seem to care? They DON'T! It isn't the judgement, sentence, etc... that is the concern. It is the perception and the carrying out.

So your intention is not what people care about. It is the perception and effect. Whether you have good or bad intentions doesn't matter.



And I can admit that the diagnosis can help weed out a lot of people. Still, it DOES add people that it shouldn't. When I came here, I started looking for patterns. Even many I thought didn't fit DO! There have ACTUALLY been times I read stuff that described ME, and I figure "I don't remember writing that!"! I see a reference to a name and figure "Who is that?"! And THEN I realize someone ELSE wrote it! Often, they ARE diagnosed. They even say so. That has happened with a number of people. As for degree of disability? That may be in the eye of the beholder. Some of those people seem NO worse off than I am! I might even be worse off than some.

Some people do that sort of thing. You can at least give them the benefit of a doubt. HECK, when you said attwood used gilbergs criteria, I was taken aback. When you recently posted both lists of criteria, they WERE different. I don't fit gilberg's, but do fit attwood's. That is nice, because attwoods DOES look like a refinement of the DSM, as opposed to an arbitrary rewrite.

BTW NO capitals here were used to yell, and this is just a friendly exchange.

AND, contrary to what at least one person in this thread said, I HAVE said "I am the same" to people listing bad/wierd symptoms, tried to console, etc... and give honest statements about things. If you look at what I say, I think you'll find it is usually in line. I don't respond to every thread, etc... Granted, you and I are different. But MANY here speak of it being a spectrum. Neither of us is at either end of the spectrum. Some are worse, and some better.

People judge others on their actions [and appearance], whether they're good or bad, and then hand out a punishment for such; this is how I know judging.

Professor Attwood's criteria are up on his site (I don't know if he uses it or not). When I went there last year (the clinic), the diagnostician used Gillberg's criteria (her name was Julie Fox). I asked another psycho there this year, and she uses Gillberg's too (so I'm assuming that it's used by the whole institution). I'm also assuming that they use such for they want to include people with "HFA" into the Asperger's label too, for good or bad.

Actually, to judge has alot of different meanings. One commonly used meaning is to be critical, and to find fault with. One of the most vague definitions was simply to observe and form an opinion. Calling someone judgemental, for example, is in and of itself judgemental. But that doesn't necessarily make it untrue. Following these definitions, everyone is a little. I'd wager that every single person would find fault with everyone else for not being more like them (given enough time to know them).

Yes, certainly.

I already had trouble to get diagnosed because - a speaking teen - that's all 'too hf' for people here.

We have lots of 'severe' cases. In the sense that a fair share of people have noticed that something odd is going on with them.

Yet we also have non-verbal autistic kids that's are said 'not to be autistic enough for a diagnosis'.

Mostly because they don't go around, stimming 24/7, try to get in contact with people and do not test MR on these standard tests, but then are too 'severe' to 'fit in with the hf classicals'. (Eh, whatever.)




Ahh, yes.

I preach that since forever. People do judge based on the actions that they can perceive with their eyes and ears. That's how all the small decision are made.

I usually have a personal addition though. 'judge based on intentions' Because that will be a lot harder and make anyone aware of the complexity of the game we're in.




Don't fit Gillberg's either. Which I needn't as people here don't know this set of criteria anyway.

Unlike the DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 G&G say one must have motor clumsiness.

But, on the criteria of Attwood:

I personally think they're a somewhat bad and simplified reinterpretation.

If you're not perfectly fitting those I see trouble coming. I think it's bad that they don't take into account that children with AS can be a lot like the descriptions for classically autistic children.

For example: Fluent speech means what exactly? That a child can say everything they need and want? I don't think all small kids with AS can express their needs although they know 100 words at an 'unlikely age'.

Another example is: Special interests. What if a child gets evaluated at an age at which it has not yet developed special interests?

But I optimistically assume Attwood knows better than to cling to that set of criteria of his in a narrow and absolute manner.